Knowledge Management Practices To Support
Continuous Improvement
Judy Oliver,
ABSTRACT:
The purpose of the study is to investigate the knowledge management
practices of organisations with a quality approach to operations. In particular, to identify practices favoured
by organisations where the quality initiatives have been rated as
“exceeded expectations”. Data was collected from a mail survey of Australian organisations
certified to quality standard ISO9000. The findings suggest that organisations
with a more successful quality program have regular briefings to share
experiences and progress on projects, best practices, success and failures; a
general environment where learning from experience is shared; and an
organisation structure that encourages ease of communication. Such attributes
support the continuous improvement efforts and encourages learning within the
organisations.
Keywords: Quality management, Continuous improvement, Organisational learning, Knowledge
management practices, Employee development
1. Introduction
Continuous improvement is deemed essential for organisations in achieving flexibility, responsiveness and the ability to adapt quickly to changes within the environment (Kaye & Anderson, 1999; Lillrank et al., 2001). A continuous improvement approach to business activities will enable an organisation to improve its competitive position either by increasing its revenue through improved relationships with customers or by achieving cost efficiencies through process improvement. It is suggested that the achievement of such goals is dependent upon the organisation having a learning culture to promote improved performance. The decision to adopt continuous improvement in itself implies a learning approach, as the organisation will be focused on improving its current business operations. Learning develops insights, knowledge and associations between past actions, the effectiveness of those actions, and future actions (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). Organisational learning is about the acquisition of new knowledge and highlights the importance of acquiring and disseminating information to assist organisation actions (Miller, 1996).
Learning can be seen to occur when organisations perform in changed and better ways, with the goal of better outcomes for the organisation. Learning is the highest form of adaptation thereby raising the probability of survival. It is argued that the learning organisation will have goals to thrive by systematically using its learning to progress beyond mere adaptation (Dodgson, 1993). Learning will involve the process of building procedural knowledge, cognitive strategies and attitudes. Learning can concentrate on methods and tools to improve what is already being done, known as single-loop learning, or on testing the assumptions underlying what is being done, known as double-loop learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978). Organisations may have a preference for one mode over the other, but a sound learning system requires both approaches (Appelbaum & Reichart, 1998). The two types of learning have been given different names by different authors. Learning to support existing practices, with a focus on immediate problem solving related to a product or an operational problem. Terms used to describe this form of learning include: low-level learning (Fiol & Lyles, 1985); single-loop learning (Argyris & Schon 1978); operational learning (Mukherjee et al., 1998); tactical learning (Mukherjee et al., 1998); and adaptative learning (Ansoff, 1991 and March, 1991, cited by Leavey, 1998). The second type of learning is concerned with the development of abilities for future innovation. Terms used in the literature for this form of learning include: high-level learning (Fiol & Lyles, 1985); double-loop learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978); strategic learning (Vickers & Cordey-Hayes, 1999); conceptual learning (Mukherjee et al., (1998); and generative learning (Ansoff, 1991 and March, 1991 cited by Leavy, 1998). Mukherjee et al. (1998) analysed the two types of learning to identify the impact on knowledge development and concluded conceptual learning requires employees to try and understand why events occur they develop the “know-why”; operational learning involves the development of skills of how to deal with experienced events, which leads to the acquisition of “know-how”.
An organisation’s knowledge management system can act as an organisational
learning mechanism (Lipshitz et al., 1996)
to support employee action to close performance gaps and allow the organisation
to reach its desired performance outcomes. Knowledge gained from the work
experience enables employees to learn new knowledge, which can then be stored
by the organisation. To understand learning within an organisation it is
necessary to understand how knowledge is accessed; how it is interpreted and
used in decision making; and how the type of decision influences the type of learning
and knowledge put to use by those within the organisation. Drawing on the work of Huber (1991) and
DiBella and
Figure 1: Stages Of Learning (Adapted
from DiBella and Nevis, 1998; Huber, 1991)
Knowledge acquisition relates to the source of knowledge and whether it is found internally or externally. The process of collecting knowledge will be subject to resource limitations and should be directed by the organisation’s strategic goals (DiBella & Nevis, 1998). The allocation of resources to knowledge-acquisition activities could indicate the commitment of the organisation to learning. Externally the organisation could engage in environmental scanning and networking to enable both the development of performance benchmarks and to identify best practice. “Boundary scanning individuals” who bring information in from outside the organisation can strengthen the process, as can “technological gatekeepers” who keep abreast of technological development (Vickers & Cordey-Hayes, 1999). The recruitment of new employees, known as grafting (Huber, 1991), can be a source of new knowledge. Examples of other initiatives the organisation can institute internally are: investment in research and development activities; brainstorming amongst employees; and parallel organisational structures (DiBella & Nevis, 1998). Stata (1989) highlights that substantial progress was made in Analog’s quality initiative once the organisation employed a staff member, specialising in quality, who was able to teach members of the organisation to tap the mainstream of experience and knowledge in the quality field. Gomez et al. (2004) found a positive significant relationship between continuing training and learning capability as the investment in training favours the acquisition and generation of new knowledge and skills, as well as the degree of openness to new ideas. The training provides a common language and a shared vision, making communication among employees and knowledge transfer easier. They also found that team-based training and the level of commitment to learning supports the importance of this type of training as an instrument that helps create a coherent group that is committed to learning and, therefore, to the constant renewal and creation of knowledge. Krishnan et al. (1993) consider training to have a central role in quality improvement programs with the objective of training to be the transition from individual learning to organisational learning. For training to contribute towards the quality effort the ‘learning’ needs to be extended to the work place immediately.
Knowledge
distribution involves the dissemination of what has been learned.
Organisations may take a structured approach, with the use of written
communications and formal training, or a more informal approach with members of
the group sharing their experiences in continuing dialogue. A climate of
openness will strengthen the dissemination of information and this can be
achieved by the accessibility of information, open communications and encouraging
legitimate disagreement and debate. Huber (1991) considers that the more widely
distributed information is within an organisation, there will be more varied
sources for it to exist. This will aid
retrieval efforts for individuals and organisational units.
Knowledge interpretation refers to the process through which information is given meaning. Huber (1991,p102) suggests that “…learning has occurred when more and more varied interpretations have been developed, because such development changes the range of the organisation’s potential behaviors, and this is congruent with the definition of learning…”. Organisational units can develop a common interpretation, or different interpretations, but it will be important for the units to understand the nature of the various interpretations. The development of a shared understanding of information will be affected by: whether the information is communicated in a uniform manner; if the information “overloads” the “interpreting unit”; the uniformity of the prior cognitive maps possessed by the organisational unit; the richness of the communication media; and the amount of unlearning (that is, the discarding of obsolete and misleading knowledge) before a new interpretation can be generated (Huber, 1991, p102).
Knowledge utilisation is concerned with the translation of events and develops the shared understanding of those experiences. Knowledge may be used to improve current capabilities, products or services or a preference may be given to knowledge that will assist in the development of these. The accessibility of information will be a determinant on how information can be used in any given situation. In the following section a more detailed discussion of how an organisation stores knowledge is given.
Organisational memory (everything in an organisation that is retrievable) is an internal source of information to the organisation. It can be defined as what people know about customers, products, processes, mistakes and successes (Grayson & O’Dell, 1998). Such knowledge is stored within the organisation in physical records such as reports, operating manuals, computer files, or through shared mental models created by employees sharing experiences and best practice. An organisation’s capability to learn will rely on its ability to record organisational experience and, when needed, retrieve these organisational experiences. Knowledge is seen as a strategic asset of the organisation, which will be the key to competitive viability and growth of the learning organisation
However, this leads to the question of how knowledge is acquired and retained in organisational memory. Do individuals retain the knowledge or is it held in some format within the organisation? (Bollinger & Smith, 2001). Individual learning must be transferred to organisational learning to become embedded in an organisation’s memory and its structure (Kim, 1993). The reliance on employees’ memories to retain, retrieve and apply organisational experiences is vulnerable to turnover and down-sizing. Nonetheless, organisational learning is more than the aggregate learning of the individual members. Organisations have the capacity to store and mobilise knowledge and preserve certain behaviours in the face of leadership changes and personnel turnover (Leavey, 1998). This can be accomplished by factors such as internal communication and the assimilation of individual knowledge into new work structures, routines and norms. However, Kim (1993) asserts that companies with a high annual turnover rate have a hard time accumulating learning because their experience base is continually being eroded. Kim argues that the intangible and often invisible assets of the organisation reside in individual mental models that collectively contribute to the shared mental models. The shared mental models make the rest of the organisation’s memory usable.
In an ideal situation all the information that comes through an organisation should be incorporated into organisational knowledge and stored. Organisations may implement database systems to manage information, e.g., electronic filing cabinets, document archive systems and knowledge sharing systems. However, a more realistic view considers constraints brought about by the resource allocation, technological capabilities and what is considered an organisational memory system by those within the firm (Ackerman, 1996). Organisational memory can be viewed along a continuum with one end point representing archival information and the other end point representing knowledge just gained. Ackerman (1996) suggests that organisational memory is influenced by the goal-driven behaviour of organisations and that the knowledge required attaining the organisational goals will be the most valued. In relation to archival knowledge, it is most likely that an organisation will only be interested in recalling knowledge that satisfies an immediate problem. A cost benefit approach will need to be applied to the retrieval and interpretation of archival knowledge.
Therefore, it is suggested that the active memory of the organisation, rather than the static memory (physical records such as the reports, operating manuals, computer files) may be more relevant for organisational learning (Kim, 1993). The active memory, both the individual and shared mental models, is what an organisation pays attention to, how it chooses to act, and what it chooses to remember from its experience. The active memory will be important, as it will be tied to the ongoing processes and considerations of an organisation (Ackerman, 1996). Figure 2 illustrates the knowledge transfer to support organisational actions.
Figure
2: Organisational Learning – Knowledge Transfer
Individuals will develop their mental models from both their work and other activities and through their interaction with other members of the organisation. The development of shared mental models will enable the construction of the organisation’s memory. The organisational memory will consist of both stored (archived) memory and active memory, which relates to current experiences. Knowledge to narrow the performance gap can be retrieved from current or past experiences, both becoming knowledge of the active memory for problem solving. However, the use of knowledge stored from past experience, the stored memory, will be dependent on two factors: (1) the ability of the current generation of employees to interpret archived knowledge; and (2) the cost associated with accessing the knowledge compared with the benefit the knowledge will have in the current situation.
2. Research Questions
Performance gaps, the difference
between where the organisation currently is in relation to its performance
objectives and where it wants to be, can only be closed by employee action
(Wick & León, 1995). Improving action through better knowledge and
understanding supports continuous improvement (Fiol& Lyles, 1985), and for
this to happen employees need to acquire new knowledge to make decisions and
influence others in the organisation. To narrow the perceived performance gaps
actions will need to be taken within the organisation. It is argued that such actions will involve
the acquisition and use of knowledge to achieve improvement and change. Through
organisational learning mechanisms, such as the knowledge management system,
employees are able both to retrieve and store knowledge for use in undertaking
their organisational roles. At the three levels of employee action, that is,
strategic planning activities, operational planning activities and operational
level activities, information will be both acquired and stored. At the planning stages, decisions will be
made regarding the desired outcomes for the organisation. To support the achievement of these
objectives the planning activities will identify the organisational areas where
focus is needed to close the performance gap.
To encourage behaviour to close the gap, control systems will be used to
acquire, disseminate and store knowledge and also provide the mechanism for
performance feedback to all levels within the organisation and encourage either
single-loop or double-loop learning.
However, the effectiveness of this process is dependent upon the choices
made by each organisation in the formulation of the OLMs. Therefore, the
research questions informing the study are:
¨
What are the knowledge management practices used by quality-focused
organisations to support continuous improvement?
¨ What are the characteristics of the knowledge management practices favoured by organisations with a more successful quality program?
3. Methodology
The empirical research will focus on organisations that have adopted a
quality focus as it would be expected that such organisations are more likely
to have an operating philosophy of continuous improvement (Abraham et al., 1997;
Terziovski et al., 2000). Organisations that have ISO 9000 certification were
selected as such certification provides an independent third-party assessment
that the organisation has implemented a quality approach to its operations, at
least in terms of the requirements of the quality standard; and the use of such
organisations is seen in the research of others (Claver et al., 2002; Hendricks
& Singhal, 1997; Llopis & Tari, 2001). Quality managers and finance
managers were considered to be the most appropriate respondents as their work
responsibilities would expose them to their organisation’s operating
practices in relation to quality management and knowledge management.
Potential respondents were sourced from the publicly available on-line Joint
Accreditation System of Australia and
Surveys were posted to both the Quality Manager and Finance Manager of each organisation representing a mail out to 1000 managers that was followed up with a second mail out. This survey covered a number of issues relating to quality practices and organisational learning and this paper reports on only the knowledge management practices. Sixteen questionnaires were received marked “return to sender” which left the potential for nine hundred and eighty four managers to respond. In all, three hundred and three responses were received representing a 30.6% response rate, and of these two hundred and seventy seven represented usable responses, resulting in a usable response rate of 28.2%. A usable survey was deemed to be one in which the respondent answered all but a few questions. To test for non-response bias an independent sample t-test was conducted comparing early and late respondents. The null hypothesis was posed that the samples came from the same population and for all characteristics, expect gender; the null hypothesis is not rejected at the .05% level of confidence. Further examination of this result shows that in the second mail out fewer males responded. However, this was not considered significant because of the high percentage of female responses overall.
4. Discussion
Of Findings
4.1. Profile of Respondents
The majority of respondents (62.6%) is responsible for quality management activities, with 26.8% responsible for financial management and 10% responsible for general management, with a further 2 surveys completed jointly by the Quality Manager and the Finance Manager. The majority of respondents (84.1%) have more than 10 years experience in business with 77.1% of respondents having undertaken post-secondary education. Such a profile suggests that respondents have the working knowledge to comment on the issues raised in the questionnaire in relation to their organisation and its quality initiatives.
4.2. Profile Of Organisations
The number of employees is used as
a measure to determine the size of respondents’ organisations, with the
findings showing 49.6% small to medium sized organisations (under 100
employees); 31.5% medium sized organisations (101 – 500 employees); and
18.9% large organisations (over 500 employees). The majority of the respondents
(97.7%) consider their organisations are operating in a competitive environment,
with 59.2% of the respondents rating the environment as very competitive. The
majority of respondents (57.7%) view
their organisation’s product/service has superior quality to
competitors, with 41.2% ranking it as similar and only one respondent giving a
ranking below competitors. Two respondents from Government organisations did
not rank their organisation.
The majority of respondents (96.3%)
identify quality-related factors as the main source of competitive advantage.
In particular, the nominated sources of competitive advantage by respondents
are: flexibility in responding to customer needs (24.2%), higher quality (of
product/service) than competitors (23.0%), and product/service differentiation
(18.3%). A combination of these factors was nominated by 24.0% of respondents,
with another 10.5% identifying a combination of both quality and cost related
factors. As respondents are from organisations with ISO 9000 certification it
would be anticipated that a quality approach would influence the development of
competitive strategies.
4.3. Knowledge
Management Practices
4.3.1. Information Acquisition
The findings indicate that respondents’ organisations have a preference for information generated internally which could be explained by the existing knowledge base currently held. The majority of respondents (76.9%) agree that employee turnover is low, which would enable the knowledge and experience of the individual to be retained by the organisation. The stability of the work force may explain why only 40.2% of respondents agree that employees retrieve archived information in contrast to 77.9% of respondents who note that employees are aware of how to access the information they need. The responses show that new ideas are encouraged (93.5% of respondents). However, whether this is fully supported in practice is questionable as only 58.5% of respondents note that good ideas are recorded for a later date and only 64.5% note the importance of employee suggestion schemes. The lack of recording such ideas may be a deterrent to employees to continue offering suggestions.
The majority of respondents (82.7%) note their organisation’s commitment to building expertise in-house. This is encouraged by management who advocate that employees should work smarter not harder (85% of respondents) and, engage in training activities (93.2% of respondents). Employee skill development is important as 70.7% of respondents note that employees are given decision-making responsibilities to deal with problems relating to their specific work activities. The importance of employee training to assist continuous improvement efforts is noted by 93.2% of respondents. An investment in training will favour the acquisition and generation of new knowledge and skills, as well as the degree of openness to new ideas (Gomez et al., 2004). The attendance of employees at external seminars is acknowledged by only 60% of respondents, which does not suggest it is a major source of new information. More importance appears to be given to the recruitment process as 72.8% of respondents’ note that the recruitment policy focuses on the acquisition of skills needed to fill performance gaps. The use of external consultants as a source of knowledge is limited as a minority of respondents notes their use to assist in either strategic (32.9%) or operational (20.2%) problem solving. The responses suggest a heavy reliance on the acquisition of information generated internally either through existing employees or via the recruitment process.
4.3.2. Information storage
An organisation’s capability
to learn will be dependent on its ability to record organisational experience
and, when needed, to retrieve this information. The majority of respondents
(89.7%) agrees retention of knowledge is important, and this is reinforced by
81.5% of respondents agreeing that their organisations have an archival system
to support this practice. 74.6% of respondents state that their organisation
stores detailed information for guiding operations, with 77.2% agreeing that
top management integrates information from different organisational units.
58.9% of respondents agree that knowledge held by employees can be captured in
formal reports, which suggests that for many organisations the
organisation’s memory is held by its employees and will be lost to the
organisation if the employee departs.
4.3.3. Information Sharing And Information Dissemination
Organisations may take a structured approach with the distribution of information by reports, either in hard copy or on-line. A more informal approach will be seen with members of the group sharing their experiences in continuing dialogue. Dissemination of information is strengthened when there is a climate of openness. Accessibility of information, open communications and the encouragement of legitimate disagreement and debate can achieve this. 86.2% of respondents agree that an open environment is encouraged whereby sharing of knowledge and information is encouraged. 72.6% respondents agree that employees share information and 80.3% of respondents agree that learning from experience is shared. This suggests that there is active information sharing within these organisations. However, only 64.9% of respondents agree that disclosure of information is encouraged and is supported with only 67.9% of respondents noting that inter-departmental communication between employees in relation to work issues is common. Only 65.3% agree that employees engage in ongoing open debate about work practices which raises doubts about the opportunity for double-loop learning.
The majority of respondents (85.1%) agree that regular meetings are held to disseminate information. In relation to the meetings 70.4% of respondents agree that managers and employees discuss issues of cost reduction openly and constructively, with 67.8% in agreement that such meetings enable management and employees to share experiences and progress on projects, best practices, successes and failures. 62.3% of respondents agree that cross-functional personnel form membership of the committees managing quality initiatives. Only 58.6% of respondents agree that such activities are monitored by quality steering committees, yet 93.5% of respondents identify continuous improvement as an important goal for the organisation, and 86.5% of respondents note that it is important when developing the strategic plan. Only 56.7% of respondents agree that project-specific teams monitor continuous improvement, however, this may be explained by the majority of respondents (81.2%) who agree that continuous improvement activities are monitored as part of normal operational control. The majority of respondents (79.5%) agree that reports are available to assess operational quality initiatives. However, only 64.6% of respondents agree that the reports are adaptable to changes in performance measures raising questions as to whether the reports are relevant to current initiatives.
In relation to information dissemination via formal reports the responses indicate that reports are a mixture of hard copy and on-line. The primary focus appears to be financial reports for operational control (85.6% of respondents) with reports being suited for the specific requirement. This assertion is supported by the majority of respondents identifying that standard reports (81.0%), specialised reports (78.3%) and exception reports (70.0%) are available to those within the organisation. However, only 62.4% of respondents agree that formal reports are available continually to assess how the organisation and managers are doing in relation to plans. Also 43.1% of respondents agree that their organisation prepares cost-of-quality reports, which is in line with the low rate of adoption cited in the literature (Oliver & Qu, 1999; Ramsay et al., 1991; Ross 1993). Technological issues were not considered a barrier to dissemination of information by 51.7% of respondents.
4.4. Further Analysis Of
Findings
Further analysis of the findings was undertaken to examine the knowledge management practices of firms with different levels of success of the quality initiative. The success of the quality program in respondents ‘organisations has been mixed. For the majority of respondents (77.4%), the quality program has met the expectations set, with 16.1% of respondents rating their organisation’s achievement as exceeding expectations. Fourteen respondents (5.1%) perceive their organisation’s disappointment with the outcome of the quality program and rated the achievement as “fell short of expectations”, with a further 4 respondents unable to determine the outcome of the quality program at the time of the study. It should be noted that the interpretation of success in this study is based on a subjective assessment, given that it represents each respondent’s view of success in relation to his or her own organisation. It is argued that this is an appropriate approach given that, in the end, if management is dissatisfied with the outcomes of practices/initiatives put into place, then such practices will not have longevity within the organisation, despite any external commentator suggesting differently.
In order to explore any differences in the knowledge management practices it was decided to test statistically the different emphases given by respondents in organisations at the extremes of the level of success (exceeded expectations and fell short of expectations) on the variables in the survey. The rationale for limiting the test to these respondent groups was based on the premise that if any differences exist, they are more likely to be found by comparing each extreme, that is, the more successful organisations (exceeded expectations) with the less successful organisations (fell short of expectations). Other studies have also compared the two extremes for drawing inferences (Lee et al., 2002, cited by O’Reagan & Ghobadian, 2004; O’Reagan & Ghobadian, 2004).
Discriminant analysis was used to
determine which variables, if any, most discriminate between more successful
organisations (respondent group E) and less successful organisations
(respondent group F). Following an ANOVA
analysis variables with significant difference in means between the two groups
were identified (refer Table 1 and Table II). These variables were then used to
determine the best predictors of whether a respondent would perceive their
organisation’s quality initiative to be either successful (exceeded
expectations) or unsuccessful (fell short of expectations). In other words, the
emphasis is on the identification of the characteristics/practices of the
organisation that have the greatest power of predicting to which group a
respondent will belong (Klecka, 1980).
Variables with a correlation coefficient of less than .50 are not
interpreted, as a loading below this would suggest low or negligible
correlation (Franzblau, 1958). The null hypothesis posed in this analysis is that there
is no statistically significant difference in the scores between the two groups
on the discriminant function. If the
null hypothesis is rejected it indicates that the variable is a discriminating
variable between the two groups.
The independent variables shown in
Table 1 grouped under “information acquisition”, “information
sharing” and “information dissemination” was used to identify
which variables are better predictors of group membership of either group F or
group E.
Table 1: Predictor
Variables For Knowledge Management Practices
|
Information Acquisition |
P= |
|
New ideas are encouraged |
.000 |
|
Employee turnover is low |
.026 |
|
Information
sharing |
|
|
The organisation structure encourages ease of communication |
.001 |
|
Sharing of information and knowledge is encouraged |
.014 |
|
Learning from experience is shared |
.000 |
|
When employees need specific information they know who will have it |
.000 |
|
Employees share information |
.002 |
|
Inter-departmental communication between employees in relation to work issues is common |
.001 |
|
Employees engage in ongoing open debate about work practices |
.010 |
|
Disclosure of information is encouraged |
.057 |
|
Employees retrieve archived information when making decisions |
.002 |
|
Managers and employees discuss issues of cost reduction openly and constructively |
.000 |
|
Information
dissemination |
|
|
Regular meetings held to disseminate information |
.001 |
|
Regular team meetings are held to discuss operational activities |
.002 |
|
Regular briefings are held to enable management and employees to share experiences and progress on projects, best practices, success and failures |
.000 |
|
Financial reports are important for operational control |
.094 |
|
Continuous improvement activities are undertaken by project specific teams |
.015 |
|
Information
storage |
|
|
Archival systems are in place to capture knowledge regarding business activities |
.008 |
|
The organisation stores detailed information for guiding operations |
.010 |
|
Good ideas are recorded for a later date |
.007 |
|
Knowledge held by employees is unable to be captured in formal reports |
.042 |
A
summary of the canonical
discriminant function for knowledge management practices follows. With a
canonical correlation at .749, the function accounts for around 56.1% of the
between-group variability. The Wilk’s
Lambda value of this function is .439 with a chi square of 34.612, df = 22, p=. 043. Therefore, the null hypothesis
is rejected, and a statistically significant difference exists in the scores of
the groups on the discriminant function. The best predictor variables
relate to: organisations having regular briefings to share experiences and
progress on projects, best practices, success and failures; a general
environment where learning from experience is shared; and an organisation
structure that encourages ease of communication. A check of the means shows
that respondent group E has scored higher on each variable. The discriminant function successfully predicts
the outcome for 91.4% of cases, with accurate predictions being made for 41
(93.1%) of respondent group E and 12 (85.7%) of respondent group F.
The independent variable shown in Table 2 relates to employee development and was used to identify which variables are better predictors of group membership of either group F or group E.
Table 2: Predictor Variables For Employee Development
|
Employee Development |
P=
|
|
Employee attendance at external seminars is encouraged |
.014 |
|
Employee flexibility, multi-skilling and training are actively used to support improvement activities |
.014 |
|
Employees are trained in teamwork |
.093 |
|
Employees are rewarded for learning new skills |
.007 |
|
Employees are trained in problem solving |
.002 |
|
Mentoring schemes are used to assist employees |
.041 |
|
Management assign employees to other parts of the organisation for cross-training |
.011 |
|
Employee teams tackle problems |
.000 |
A summary of the canonical discriminant
function for employee development attributes follows. With a canonical
correlation at .595, the function accounts for around 35.4% of the
between-group variability. The
Wilk’s Lambda value of this function is .646 with a chi square of 22.316,
df = 8, p=.004. Therefore, the null
hypothesis is rejected, and a statistically significant difference exists in
the scores of the groups on the discriminant function. The best predictor
variables are the use of employee teams to tackle problem solving, the training
of employees in problem solving, rewarding employees for learning new skills. A
check of the means highlights respondent group E scores higher for each
variable. The discriminant function
successfully predicted the outcome for 81.0% of cases, with accurate
predictions being made for 36 (81.8.0%) of respondent group E and 11(78.5%) of
respondent group F.
Overall, it can be determined that respondent group E organisations make use of regular briefings to enable management and employees to share experiences and progress on projects, best practices, success and failure. Respondent group E more highly the value their organisations place on learning from experience and having an organisation culture that encourages ease of communication. Respondent group E organisations encourage employees to learn by rewarding them for learning new skills and make more use of employee teams to tackle problems, which should enable the sharing of experience and knowledge. Importantly it is more likely that respondent group E organisations will train employees to undertake their problem-solving role.
5. Concluding Comments
This research was motivated by the desire to learn more about the knowledge management practices of organisations adopting a quality approach to operations. In particular, to identify those practices favoured by organisations with a more successful quality program. Knowledge is a strategic asset of the organisation, and will be the key to competitive viability and growth of the learning organisation. Employees will need to acquire knowledge to make decisions and influence others in the organisation in order to improve performance. The knowledge management system enables the transfer and storing of knowledge to assist employees in their work activities. The sharing of information supports life-long learning, as it encourages all employees to learn and may lead to changes in work practices that will improve performance and support continuous improvement efforts. As suggested by Popper & Lipshitz (1998) higher-level learning, is more likely when all members of the organisation are continually engaged in learning, helping others to learn and sharing their learning with others.
The findings suggest that
organisations with a quality program that has exceeded expectations have been
able to develop a shared vision within the organisation. This has been encouraged by a knowledge
sharing culture based on trust and openness. The development of shared mental
models is encouraged by employees working together in teams and regularly
sharing experiences and best practices; and success and failures. Perhaps this
has been possible by the more stable work force which would lead to retention
of individual’s knowledge within the organisation and encourage employees
to share ideas for improvement. It would seem that people not technology is the
major source of knowledge transfer as it appears that the active rather than
archived memory is used for decision making. It could be argued that such
organisations have become a learning community, whereby, as the individuals
learn, the organisation learns its way forward.
6. References
Abraham, M., Crawford, J., and Fisher, T., 1997, Quality culture and the management of organisation change, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 14(6), 616-636
Ackerman, M.S., 1996, Definitional and contextual issues in organisational and group memories, Information Technology & People, 9(1), 10-24
Appelbaum, S.H., and Goransson, L., 1997, Transformational and adaptive learning within the learning organisation: a framework for research and applications, The Learning Organisation, 4(3), 115
Appelbaum, S.H. and Reichart, W. 1998, How to measure an organisation’s learning ability: a learning orientation: part II, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol.10, Iss.1, pp.15-28
Argyris, C, and Schon, D., 1978, Organisational
Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company,
Bollinger, A.S. and Smith, R.D., 2001, Managing organisational knowledge as a strategic asset, Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 8-18
Claver, E., Tari, J.J., and Molina, J.F., 2002, Areas of improvement in certified firms advancing towards TQM, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(8/9), 1014-1036
DiBella, A., and Nevis, E., 1998, How
Organisations Learn, Jossey-Bass Publishers, CA,
Dodgson, M., 1993, Organisational Learning: A review of some literatures, Organisation Studies, 14(3), 375-394
Fiol, C.M., and Lyles, M., 1985, Organisational learning,
Franzblau, A., 1958, A Primer of
Statistics for Non-Statisticians,
Harcourt, Brace & World
Gomez, P.J., Lorente, J.J., and Cabrera, R.V., 2004, Training Practices and organisational learning capability: Relationship and implications, Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(2/3/4), 234-256
Grayson, C.J., and O’Dell, C., 1998, If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer of internal best practices, California Management Review, 40(3), 54-174
Hendricks, K.B., and Singhal, V.R., 1997, Does Implementing an effective TQM Program actually improve operating performance? Empirical evidence from firms that have won quality awards, Management Science, 43(9), 1258-1274
Huber, G. P., 1991, Organisational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures, Organisation Science, 2, 88-115
Joint Accreditation System of Australia and
Kaye, M., and Anderson, R., 1999, Continuous improvement: the ten essential criteria, International Journal of Quality & Reliability management, 15(5), 485-506
Kim, D., 1993, The link between individual and organisational learning, Sloan Management Review, Fall, 37-50
Klecka, W.R., 1980, Discriminant
Analysis, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series, No.19,
Krishnan, R., Shani, A.B., Grant, R.M., and Baer, R., 1993, In search of quality improvement: Problems of design and implementation, Academy of Management Executive, 7(4), 7-20
Leavey, B., 1998, The concept of learning in the strategy field: Review and outlook, Management Learning, 29(4), 447-466
Lee, J., Lee, K., and
Lillrank, P., Shani, A.B., and Lindberg P., 2001, Continuous improvement: Exploring alternative organisational designs, Total Quality Management, 12(1), 41-55
Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., and Oz, S., 1996, Building learning organisations: the design and implementation of organisational learning mechanisms, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(3), 292-305
Llopis, J., and Tari J.J., 2001, The important of internal aspects of quality improvement, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(3), 304-324
Miller, D., 1996, A preliminary typology of organisational learning: synthesizing the literature, Journal of Management, 22(3), 485-505
Mukherjee, A.S., Lapré, M.A. and Wassenhove, L.V., 1998, Knowledge Driven Quality Improvement, Management Science, 44(11), 35-49
Oliver, J., and Qu, W, 1999, Cost of Quality Reporting: Some Australian Evidence, International Journal of Applied Quality Management, 2(2), 233-250
O’Regan, N., and Ghobadian, A., 2004, Testing the homogeneity of SMEs: The impact of size on managerial and organisational processes, European Business Review, 15(1), 64-79
Popper, M, and Lipshitz, R., 1998, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(2), 161-179
Ramsay, L., Samson, D., and Sohal, A., 1991, Total Quality Management: The Practices of Selected Australian
Manufacturers, Graduate
Ross, P., 1993, The Impact of Total
Quality Management Systems on Existing Management Accounting,
Stata, R., 1989, Organisational learning; The key to management innovation, Sloan Management Review, Spring, 30(3), 63-74
Terziovski, M., Howell, A., Sohal, A., and Morrison, M., 2000, Establishing mutual dependence between TQM and the learning organisation: a multiple case study analysis, The Learning Organisation, 7(1), 23-31
Vickers,
Wick, C.W. and León, L.S., 1995, From Ideas to Action: Creating a learning organisation, Human Resource Management, 34(2), 299-311
About the Author
Judy Oliver,
Judy Oliver is a senior lecturer in accounting at